The Jagr/Mario overlap

[jigglysquishy]

If we agree that the league talent pool more or less increased with the size of the league then we should take into consideration that in 88/89 the league had 21 teams, in 92/93 it had 24 teams and in 95/96 it had 26 teams.

Why would we agree on that?

The talent pool and league size are not related in any way.

Jagr was dominating players like Lindros and Bure both of whom were better than Lafleur.

I know you passionately hate Lafleur, but I don't follow why Lindros and Bure would be better than Lafleur.

Bure peaked at third in PPG, his only year top three. Lafleur lead twice and finished top three five times.

 

[MadLuke]

Jagr was dominating players like Lindros and Bure both of whom were better than Lafleur.

I wonder how clear that would be, Lafleur was a 130goals-209 pts in the junior all-time prospect that delivered and could have been the best Canadian scorer born (some would say Bossy and some other but he would be in the talk) after Orr and before Gretzky, that was during Canada baby boom and hyper popularity of the sport.

not much issue for Jagr > Lafleur, but Lindros&Bure ?

players	season	adjusted PPG
Jaromir Jagr	19981999​	2.35​
Jaromir Jagr	19992000​	2.23​
Jaromir Jagr	19951996​	2.03​
Jaromir Jagr	20002001​	1.98​
Jaromir Jagr	19971998​	1.98​
Eric Lindros	19981999​	1.96​
Guy Lafleur	19771978​	1.90​
Eric Lindros	19941995​	1.88​
Guy Lafleur	19761977​	1.88​
Pavel Bure	19992000​	1.86​
Jaromir Jagr	20052006​	1.81​
Jaromir Jagr	19941995​	1.80​
Guy Lafleur	19791980​	1.73​
Guy Lafleur	19781979​	1.69​
Pavel Bure	19971998​	1.64​
Guy Lafleur	19751976​	1.57​

Too close to call at best.

 

[daver]

Jagr was dominating players like Lindros and Bure both of whom were better than Lafleur.

Lindros and Bure aren't statistics.

So you agree that Jagr and Lafleur were similarly dominant statistically. Great, thank you for making my argument.

 

[daver]

Why would we agree on that?

The talent pool and league size are not related in any way.

It's not unreasonable to assume that the comparable for #20 scorer from a 21 team league is closer to #15 in a 30 team league.

Of course when you get closer to the Top 3/5 in any season, the margins get a lot closer.

 

[WarriorofTime]

Where does NHL in '96 being the peak of talent pool idea come from? I can't imagine there ever being a real way to verify such a claim other than "feel". From a demographic perspective, league was still 61.5 % Canadian. The U.S. had a best on best worth of great players but not as deep, 18.4 %. The Soviet trained Russians at 7.5 %, a smaller portion of Swedes and Finns at 4.3 % and 1.8 %. Czechoslovakian trained Czechs and Slovaks at 4.2 % and 1.2 %, and other miscellaneous non-"Big 7" at 1.1 %.

Does the Canadian % dropping 20 % from 96 -> 24 represent a decline in hockey in Canada? While a heavily discussed subject, I think based on participation numbers that is less so the case (maybe in the 20 years from now future, but I don't think in anything that would be reflected in current NHL demographics) and more so further competition from USA, Sweden/Finland, and "miscellaneous".

 

[Overrated]

Lindros and Bure aren't statistics.

So you agree that Jagr and Lafleur were similarly dominant statistically. Great, thank you for making my argument.

What kind of an argument is that? That is like saying Lemieux also wasn't statistically dominant because of Gretzky. And if we were to be completely honest Lafleur was only dominant due to your arbitrarily chosen years which include the dips of his two closest competitors. If we instead picked the best three consecutive seasons of his peers (Dionne and Bossy) he ain't all that dominant anymore.

 

[Overrated]

Why would we agree on that?

The talent pool and league size are not related in any way.

It's definitely correlated though. As the game grew in popularity and became worldwide the league became bigger and started expanding.

 

[jigglysquishy]

It's definitely correlated though. As the game grew in popularity and became worldwide the league became bigger and started expanding.

League size isn't related to worldwide popularity though.

League size is a direct function of American TV money. Popularity of the sport in Canada, Sweden, Russia, etc. doesn't factor into league size.

 

[Overrated]

I wonder how clear that would be, Lafleur was a 130goals-209 pts in the junior all-time prospect that delivered and could have been the best Canadian scorer born (some would say Bossy and some other but he would be in the talk) after Orr and before Gretzky, that was during Canada baby boom and hyper popularity of the sport.

not much issue for Jagr > Lafleur, but Lindros&Bure ?

players	season	adjusted PPG
Jaromir Jagr	19981999​	2.35​
Jaromir Jagr	19992000​	2.23​
Jaromir Jagr	19951996​	2.03​
Jaromir Jagr	20002001​	1.98​
Jaromir Jagr	19971998​	1.98​
Eric Lindros	19981999​	1.96​
Guy Lafleur	19771978​	1.90​
Eric Lindros	19941995​	1.88​
Guy Lafleur	19761977​	1.88​
Pavel Bure	19992000​	1.86​
Jaromir Jagr	20052006​	1.81​
Jaromir Jagr	19941995​	1.80​
Guy Lafleur	19791980​	1.73​
Guy Lafleur	19781979​	1.69​
Pavel Bure	19971998​	1.64​
Guy Lafleur	19751976​	1.57​

Too close to call at best.

He still scored less than Esposito, was only marginally better than Dionne, equal to Bossy and outright scored 80 points less than Gretzky who peaked just a few years after him. Peak Lemieux in 88/89 scored just 44 points more than Yzerman.

 

[Overrated]

League size isn't related to worldwide popularity though.

League size is a direct function of American TV money. Popularity of the sport in Canada, Sweden, Russia, etc. doesn't factor into league size.

I don't disagree with this. The league quality in 95/96 was higher nevertheless.

 

[jigglysquishy]

I think Lemieux 1989 vs Lemieux 1996 is a great litmus test for how well someone understands hockey.

The video is freely available. It's so painfully obvious that Lemieux in 1989 was just a straight up better hockey player than he was in 1996. Like, it's right in front of us. How can people not see it?

Statistics are just statistics. They're a tool to understand reality. If your methodology promotes an obvious falsehood like Lemieux 1996>Lemieux 1989 then it just flys in the face of reality.

 

[Overrated]

I think Lemieux 1989 vs Lemieux 1996 is a great litmus test for how well someone understands hockey.

The video is freely available. It's so painfully obvious that Lemieux in 1989 was just a straight up better hockey player than he was in 1996. Like, it's right in front of us. How can people not see it?

Statistics are just statistics. They're a tool to understand reality. If your methodology promotes an obvious falsehood like Lemieux 1996>Lemieux 1989 then it just flys in the face of reality.

I am not claiming what you're alluding to. You're misunderstanding me completely:

The Jagr/Mario overlap

I believe the number of seasons they played together provides clear evidence of how a Big 4 player/Top 2 offensive forward of all-time was clearly superior to a 2nd tier/best of the Non Big 4 level player like Jagr (and by reasonable proxy, Crosby and McDavid). A peak Mario is clearly superior...

forums.hfboards.com

 

[MadLuke]

He still scored less than Esposito, was only marginally better than Dionne, equal to Bossy and outright scored 80 points less than Gretzky who peaked just a few years after him. Peak Lemieux in 88/89 scored just 44 points more than Yzerman.

Esposito was born pre Orr, in 1942 (and I am not sure if he was clearly more talented at scoring than Lafleur, enough to remove him of the conversation), the statement was from march 21 1948 to january 25, 1961 is there a single canadian born clearly more talented and better at scoring than Lafleur was ?

What he did in the juniors, in the pro, in the playoff, he is up there, why the possibly best in a full hockey generation (12 years), middle of Canada baby boom, absolute prime popularity of the sport would not compete well against the Bure-Lindros of the world and be in a too close to call situation.

As for your example I mean it is not like peak Gretzky-Lemieux would not have outscored Bure-Lindros, lesser version did it fine, do we think Bure-Lindros would not have scored just marginnaly more than Dionne, about like Bossy and completely outscored by peak Gretzky playing in a higher scoring league than them ?

 

[Overrated]

Esposito was born pre Orr, in 1942 (and I am not sure if he was clearly more talented at scoring than Lafleur, enough to remove him of the conversation), the statement was from march 21 1948 to january 25, 1961 is there a single canadian born clearly more talented and better at scoring than Lafleur was ?

Sure but he peaked 5 years before Lafleur and Gretzky 5 years after him. That is why I mention them. They are relevant for the conversation. Sometimes great prospects don't turn out as well as anticipated. Some flop all together like Alyn McCauley, some become quite underwhelming like Reichel. In soccer there was this Barcelona player Bojan who apparently broke some of Messi's junior records yet never materialized into a star player. Lafleur eventually became the best forward in the world so he didn't turn out too poorly after all. I'm still picking both Potvin and Bossy over him.

As for your example I mean it is not like peak Gretzky-Lemieux would not have outscored Bure-Lindros, lesser version did it fine, do we think Bure-Lindros would not have scored just marginnaly more than Dionne, about like Bossy and completely outscored by peak Gretzky playing in a higher scoring league than them ?

I think Lindros would outscore Lafleur by 10-20 points while contributing defensively. Lafleur from what I've seen played pretty much 0 defense. Lafleur also enjoyed playing on a super team while Bure played pretty much alone still getting 60 goals in the depth of the dead puck era. Bure suffered one of the worst from the r3tarded draft system that is why statistics can be misleading when players get assigned to teams the way they do. He passes all the eye tests Just watch him at Nagano - pure insanity. All of this talent flushed down the toilet due to the stupidity of the NHL. Guy was of course a great player and overall greater than both Bure and Lindros but I think the two peaked higher and just had underwhelming careers.

 

[MadLuke]

Lafleur played on a superteam and Lemaire can get underrated, but a lot of their superteamness was defense and debt, not necessarily a special level of super offensive talent at the top other big teams did not had

Peak bruins-oilers-Isles-Nordiques-Sabres scoring was not that different (i.e. which include a lot of people Lafleur is being compared too):

NHL Stats

The official source for NHL Stats including skaters, goalies, teams stats and more.

www.nhl.com

I get picking Potvin over Lafleur, but was he a better scorer (same would go for say Trottier or Clarke).

Bure was a better goal scorer, but did he create more plays and goal than Lafleur ? feel like Lindros, too close to call, but I do feel a bit similar among all the non Wayne-Mario forward before McDavid turned an other level, Crosby-Ovechkin-Jagr-Howe-Lafleur-Espo-Lindros-Yzerman-Sakic-McDavid until his big playoff runs, peaks hard to clearly rank one over the others, just at the top of mortals.

 

[Michael Farkas]

I'm only glancing at the thread, but I see a lot of "Lafleur vs." talk...I'm not convinced that Gilbert Perreault wasn't better than Lafleur.

 

[vadim sharifijanov]

If people are curious to watch.



Penguins powerplay at 7:37 in the video

Nedved takes the faceoff. Lemieux on LW. Jagr on RW. Zubov and Francis on the blueline.

The whole sequence is great.

You quickly get a 4on4 with Gretzky/Hull/MacInnis vs Lemieux/Francis/Jagr. Gretzky takeaway to slapshot at 9:30

Lemieux scores at 11:19

Penguins PP at 26:30. Some great tic-tac-toe passing from 26:45-27:20

Penguins 5 on 3 at 28:30. Gretzky is out on the 5 on 3.

Great one timer to Lemieux at 30:20. Turns into a goal on a weird bounce at 30:30.

Fantastic Jagr takeaway, pass to Lemieux, pass to Jagr for a shot on net at 36:45

Penguins PP at 40:50 that ends up in a Lemieux goal.

The entire Penguins PP starting at 1:11:25 is great to watch. It turns into a 5 on 3 starting at 1:15:20 after Courtnall charges Wregget.
Lemieux scores at 1:16:45, one second after the 5 on 3 turns to a 5 on 4.

Great takeaway by Lemieux on Hull at 1:23:55 that results in a shorthanded goal.

I only watched the first two periods. Quick impressions

Helmetless Craig MacTavish
Lemieux looks immobile, but still just toys with people. Always in the right spot. Perfect passing. Perfect shot.
Jagr looks like the best player on the ice.
Gretzky looks good, but is alone out there. He shoots a lot and is still willing to go to the net (see 1:07:35), but misses the net. That he's still out there on the PK is pretty crazy.
Hull doesn't look nearly as good as I remember.
Pronger looks strong, but is caught out of place a few times.
The Penguins PP is just perfect pass after perfect pass.
The Blues PK without MacInnis is much weaker than with. Pronger wasn't the player he was a few years later.
Nedved is fast and relied upon to gain the zone on the PP a lot. Really, it's him and Jagr that are doing it.

ooh thx, looking fwd to watching this

dueling PPs:

mario nedved jagr
francis zubov

vs

corson(?) gretzky hull
pronger macinnis

just a bonkers matchup

 

[daver]

I wonder how clear that would be, Lafleur was a 130goals-209 pts in the junior all-time prospect that delivered and could have been the best Canadian scorer born (some would say Bossy and some other but he would be in the talk) after Orr and before Gretzky, that was during Canada baby boom and hyper popularity of the sport.

not much issue for Jagr > Lafleur, but Lindros&Bure ?

players	season	adjusted PPG
Jaromir Jagr	19981999​	2.35​
Jaromir Jagr	19992000​	2.23​
Jaromir Jagr	19951996​	2.03​
Jaromir Jagr	20002001​	1.98​
Jaromir Jagr	19971998​	1.98​
Eric Lindros	19981999​	1.96​
Guy Lafleur	19771978​	1.90​
Eric Lindros	19941995​	1.88​
Guy Lafleur	19761977​	1.88​
Pavel Bure	19992000​	1.86​
Jaromir Jagr	20052006​	1.81​
Jaromir Jagr	19941995​	1.80​
Guy Lafleur	19791980​	1.73​
Guy Lafleur	19781979​	1.69​
Pavel Bure	19971998​	1.64​
Guy Lafleur	19751976​	1.57​

Too close to call at best.

I never understand your "adjusted" PPGs. And why you feel a need to "adjust" at all.

Why not show the % gap between them and their respective peers and offer whatever context you think is relevant and let others draw their own conclusions?

Jagr's peak season 98/99 (PPG of 1.57)

10% ahead of 2nd place (Selanne)
26% ahead of 5th place (Forsberg)
44% ahead of 10th place (Demitra)
74% ahead of 25th place
107% ahead of 50th place

LaFleur's peak season 76/77 (PPG of 1.70)

11% ahead of 2nd place (Dionne)
38% ahead of 5th place (MacLeish)
50% ahead of 10th place (McDonald)
73% ahead of 25th place
112% ahead of 50th place

Lafleur's season is marginally more dominant but the league size needs to be considered so I think they are very close.

And do you not think that your numbers are flawed if by "adjusting" you significantly shift the raw statistical data?

But back to the main point, Lafleur was most statistically dominant player in the post Orr/Espo era, and was dominating, at his peak, in a similar fashion to the peaks of the other "Best of the Non-Big Fours".

If one wants to dispute where his statistical dominance places him all-time, that's fine but you cannot argue against the statistical reality of his dominance.

There is zero reason to believe that he doesn't separate himself from the pack in the same manner if he played five years later when Wayne hit the 200 point mark.

 

[Overrated]

I never understand your "adjusted" PPGs. And why you feel a need to "adjust" at all.

Why not show the % gap between them and their respective peers and offer whatever context you think is relevant and let others draw their own conclusions?

Maybe because that is possibly the most misleading methodology imaginable used only to fit preconceived outcomes?

 

[daver]

Maybe because that is possibly the most misleading methodology imaginable used only to fit preconceived outcomes?

Yes, this whole "best in the league" thing has been suspect from Day 1. It's time we acknowledge the people who were saying in 1951 that Howe was a simply "Patrick Kane but bigger".

When I have time, I will present my "adjusted" Stanley Cup winners.

 

[daver]

There was no fundamental change to scoring from the mid-70s to mid-80s other than a significant overall increase in scoring and more high level scorers when the league expanded to 21 teams (i.e. more elite offensive players exploited the expansion and subsequent rise in scoring).

Each season saw a normal turnover of Top 10 scorers from the previous two seasons, there is no statistical anomaly that stands out in this regard.

All of this is to say the dominant scorers from the late '70s would do as well in the early '80s. Thinking that any of them would see a significant change in their relative domination is unreasonable.

 

[Overrated]

There was no fundamental change to scoring from the mid-70s to mid-80s other than a significant overall increase in scoring and more high level scorers when the league expanded to 21 teams (i.e. more elite offensive players exploited the expansion and subsequent rise in scoring).

Each season saw a normal turnover of Top 10 scorers from the previous two seasons, there is no statistical anomaly that stands out in this regard.

All of this is to say the dominant scorers from the late '70s would do as well in the early '80s. Thinking that any of them would see a significant change in their relative domination is unreasonable.

Hockey was experiencing a massive boom back then but at the same time the league scoring increased a little bit. I think the two would have canceled each other out. I think it's fair to expect to Lafleur to score at about the same level he did in the mid late 1970s so 80 points less than Greztky. That is a massive disparity. Do you honestly think prime Gretzky would have 80 points on McDavid? Impossible.

I took Mario's best two seasons 88/89 & 92/93 and compare them to the best two Jagr's seasons 98/99 & 99/00 (let's not take into consideration the year of Mario's comeback nor 95/96) and tried to do some sort of adjusting and the two would have been ~40 points apart had Jagr played in a higher scoring environment. I think it came out to be around 208 vs 168. In the early 80s it would have been even more. Had Jagr played in the late 1970s I would have expected him to score anywhere from 30 to 50 points more than Lafleur.

The late 1970s Canadian forwards were just weaker than in the decades both before and after. You could see it how Dionne who was a superstar in Canada and who played a ton of international hockey got outscored by the top 6 Soviet forwards including someone like Mikhailov who was in his mid 30s.

And before you claim it was because he the Soviets trained together and what not Bobby Hull didn't have an issue scoring internationally, neither did Esposito and neither did Gretzky nor Yzerman.

 

[Hockey Outsider]

August 12, but yes.

Now if only someone will buy my old house.

Congrats! I was in the same position last year.

I'm not saying that you should definitely take the first offer to come along - but it can be expensive to wait for something better.

 

[MadLuke]

Why not show the % gap between them and their respective peers and offer whatever context you think is relevant and let others draw their own conclusions?

To show a single number, but it is based purely on a % gap between them and the average top (say around top 25-35 depending on the year) Canadian scorer of that season. Reader still need to draw their own conclusion about how good Canadian scorer were at the time.

 

[daver]

To show a single number, but it is based purely on a % gap between them and the average top (say around top 25-35 depending on the year) Canadian scorer of that season. Reader still need to draw their own conclusion about how good Canadian scorer were at the time.

Considering, or not considering, the nationalities of the players would be a context that some may choose, or not choose to apply.

As would the size of the league.

As would the general scoring environment and the scoring environment for the elite offensive players.

My main point is people wanting to "adjust" things when there is not a clear statistical anomaly, usually in the direction that fits their pre-conceived narrative

For example, "the 70s was a terrible era".

Was anyone saying this at the time?

Was everyone putting an asterix on LaFleur's numbers or doubting his relative dominance at the time? No, he was the clear best player for at least three seasons.